Slashdot Mirror

So why are Gustave Courbet's famous painting and others being banned by Facebook? From what you said publishing the painting is just fine and it's the imminent action that may warrant the police to act. Whoops, said action, lying on a bed, happened in the 19th century so it's not imminent at all, and certainly not illegal. So really, why censor this painting?

Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want; even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.

So why are Gustave Courbet's famous painting and others being banned by Facebook? From what you said publishing the painting is just fine and it's the imminent action that may warrant the police to act. Whoops, said action, lying on a bed, happened in the 19th century so it's not imminent at all, and certainly not illegal. So really, why censor this painting?

They have been removing free speech from the start.

They have been removing free speech from the start.

His works have actually been confirmed to be based on fractals.

So is broccoli, but at least you can tell which way up it goes.

I'll do you one better. The budget of the ENTIRE Smithsonian Institution for fiscal year 2015, the world's largest museum and research complex, is $819.5 million. This includes salaries and expenses of $675.3 million. You could fund all 19 Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo for over 5 years for what this ship costs.

More crap to buy now and mortgage off onto the next 30-50 years of taxpayers.

Who knows! Maybe Chicago won't be happy until taxes on everything in the city are at 50% plus whatever the Obama Administration decides to tack on for "free universal health care".

This about sums up my feelings. If you want to be truthful, double it.

...I also found this, a machine that produces shit.

Playing this game when you're 17 will warp your fragile mind, but playing it when you're 18 is A-OK? Bleah. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by some populist politicians to stir up public support over a matter so freaking trivial that it makes the Sparta Teapot Museum look positively profound. The only thing that's worse than politicians pandering to hot-button issues is the people who keep voting them in. No wonder disillusion with democracy is running rampant.

Give them their own flying chair!

the bad teeth thing may not be a huge stretch

This is a reoccuring stereotype that makes me wonder every time.

I have no idea where this has come from, I can't think of any particular reason why British people would have worse teeth and I have my self never thought that you yanks have better teeth than Brits. Surely Janet hasn't ruined it for the rest of us.

I read a lot of magazines and newspapers online. When I'm in the US I buy most of them in paper form (including the NYT every day) but I'm in Europe most of the time and the online versions are the only reasonably fresh way to get the content I want.

I actually have paid for an online subscription to the New York Review of Books but it was a bit pricey.

What I would like to see is one place where I could pay a single price and select several online content sites to subscribe to. Even if each one has a separate price, I still want one place to handle the subscriptions. I think the hassle barrier is higher than any (reasonable) price barrier. I should have one account that gives me access to several journals.

I would happily pay US$50/year for combined unlimited access to the NYT, the NYRB, the New Yorker, and Artnet Magazine. (Most of that content is currently free.) But I'm not going to bother with four separate subscriptions.

And I really don't think a micropayment or other per-article payment scheme will ever work. The fact that Fark makes money should be a pretty strong hint (and they're not even selling content per se, just better access to their site).

Slightly off-topic aside: if we all use Firefox now, why the continuous grumbling about the NYT Free Reg Req? Whenever the cookie expires on my completely non-personal account, the Fox just logs me back in.

Elmyr de Hory was one of the greatest forgers of all time, and a really interesting guy.

Clifford Irving, who was also a forger in his own field, wrote a really good book on de Hory, titled Fake! (with the exclamation).

And then of course Orson Welles made a film exploring these issues.

All highly recommended. The art forgery world is at least as interesting as the "legitimate" art world.

If you want to get into it, there's a primer available.

Two words: Fischli & Weiss.

'Nuff said. Look it up if you don't know.

But OK, I can't resist, so:

I remember when the thing came out and there was the point that they "cheated" once or twice. I believe the "cheating" was less about physics than about photography - maybe the speakers?

In any case I hope Peter and David were paid well for this, 'cause if not then it's a rip-off of the highest order.

Not that they'd find that a bad thing necessarily... we artists are usually tickled pink to be plagiarized by Big Capital, and it certainly doesn't hurt our prices.

Since I live in both the "traditional" (painting) art world and the "new media" (computer/network/etc) world, I always find it amusing how people in the latter tend to be more ignorant of the former than the other way around. Even though there is always a lot of osmotic exchange of ideas between the two.

Right here, guys.

Shh... Don't tell Taco. kthx, cowboyneal

Right here, guys

All pics (C) 2003 Cowboy "Adres" Neal

Right here.

All pics (C) 2003 CowboyNeal

Right here.

All pics (C) 2003 CowboyNeal

In the U.S., I think that the government should fund Free Software development for projects that the Government is likeyly to use or desires for specific projects. I also believe that the government should not fund the development of closed source projects that are destined to be products for private vendors, as that would be using public funds to enrich private individuals and of course would end up rife with corruption. Perhaps using the BSD license for government funded projects would be "politically correct" enough in the Republican sense as it would not preclude thier supporters from turning the project results into a money making venture if they had the desire, technology, and business sense to do so.

I would not like to see the U.S. government begin funding programming in a more general way, because there is the possibility of uUniversities and Free Software development labs/projects becoming dependant on govt. money and the politicisation of Free Software when a govt. funded project is released that has the potential to be used in ways that some people do not approve of. A group of network security and monitoring tools could be misconscrued as "tools for hackers", or an HTTP server condemned as for "the distribution of pornography". To many, this may seem far fetched, but those who are familiar with the art world know how mixing public funding for museums and public exhibition venues was turned into a Republican "bully pulpit issue" in the controversy over the display of artwork most notably Piss Christ by Andres Serrano and some photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe. The works in question were not specifically created using government funds, but the issues arose when facilities that were partially funded by government grants decided to display the artwork. As it is now, he volunteer nature of much Free Software development prevents many of the political issues that could arise, and it also ensures that political decision making has little or no direct influence on what is developed or how.

I must admit that I do find it disturbing to know that the U.S. government is funding "computer science" education programs that amount to little more than training facilities where people learn to program for a specific and propietary platform, but I'm not sure there is an acceptable policy that could prevent this.

So, when technology advances to the point that any object - be it a blender, a Monet, or even a Pitz can be perfectly replicated ad infinitum, what happens? No more fine art, huh?